32 The Conviction of Things Not Seen
over twenty centuries of living faith. It contains words of biblical beauty and
theological integrity and forms a vocabulary that is appropriate to all Chris­
tian groups. The written texts ofworship (prayers, liturgies, songs, and creeds)
utilize a language that is familiar to the whole church and treasured by the
whole church. This language is passed on through generations of believers and
becomes the worshiper's native tongue.
The second language to be spoken is that ofsign and symbol, transcendence
and mystery, picture and image, drama and gesture. It is the language of visual
and oral expression and is reintroduced to us by way of our cultural orienta­
tion. The first language invites participation at the cognitive level; the second
language invites participation at the affective level. Both provide genuine oppor­
tunities to encounter God in a world that is in need of experiencing the Eter­
nal. Providing these opportunities is a far cry from providing stylistic choices.
Style-driven worship attempts to please others; bilingual worship helps others
to find their worship language so that they can actively minister to the one who
created them and awaits their adoration.
Perhaps people in the new century don't need to find their worship style as
much as they need to find their worship voice. One suggests satisfYing prefer­
ences; the other suggests enabling worshipers to do the active, participatory,
work of worship. I propose that the merging of tradition and innovation in
the life of the church will best occur when we decide to ask better questions,
admit that cultural shifts will likely keep us in transition for quite a while, and
prayerfully listen to God, awaiting reorientation from God and remembering
that the process of "going through" is what moves us "to"-in this case, to a
new era of Christian ministry.
2
A Rose by Any Other Name
Attempts at Classifying North American Protestant Worship
Lester Ruth
How would you classifY the worship of your church or parish? It is "contem­
porary" or "traditional"? Are those terms too limited? In that case, would the
terms "linear" or "organic," as found in some recent youth ministry training
materials, be more helpful? 1 Still at a loss for the right classification? Maybe
these terms from a recent online worship forum would be more accurate: "multi­
sensory worship," "indigenous worship," "innovative worship," "transforma­
tion worship," "blended worship," "praise services," "spirited traditional," "crea­
tive," or "classic worship"?2 Or are ethnic or racial designators more descriptive
ofyour service's character: ''African-American,'' "Hispanic," "Euro-American,"
or some other similar designation?3
Has the term that is exactly right for your church's worship not been men­
tioned yet? If so, then how about "multimedia worship," "authentic worship,"
"liturgical worship," "praise and worship," or "seeker services"?4 Perhaps terms
rooted in various intended "audiences" would be better: "believer-oriented wor­
ship," "believer-oriented worship made visitor-friendly," or "visitor-oriented
worship."5 Some scholars now advocate classifications by generations. And so,
i,~ your worship service "boomer," "buster," "Gen-X," or "millenials'" worship?
As you can see, there exists a dizzying array of terms and classifications for
worship. This diversity of classification schemes reflects the current state of
I )rotestant worship in North America. A cacophony of terms describe the wide
range llfworship services. Even single resources can contribute to the Babel of
l"h~silicati()n schemes. In one I"('cent anthology on worship, for example, the
lilb fllr the v:lri()I1,~ C'ssay,~ showed dl'sign:llions dl'rived hy stylistic. theological,
~·t1lltil", alld ajJ,C'-NIlC'dfk lllIL~idl'l'.1tjoll,~."
u
 34
The Conviction ofThings Not Seen
Is it possible to find some semblance of order within these widely different
taxonomies for worship? In our attempt to do so, the first step will be to exam­
ine four current taxonomies and recognize their strengths and limitations.
Then, building on some of these taxonomies and filtering the usable data
through some categories derived from Robert Webber, I will suggest some ways
of classifYing North American Protestant approaches to worship that I hope
are true to their breadth. While the new taxonomic schemes I will present do
not exhaust all possible taxonomies, I hope they will offer some helpful desig­
nations. The taxonomy I will suggest makes classifications based on the nature
of liturgical commemoration (What is remembered over time from worship
service to service?), the dominant sacramental principle in a congregation's
worship (What is the primary way worshipers assess God's presence in wor­
ship?), and liturgical polity (What is the method by which worship is planned
in individual congregations?). These taxonomical categories are suggested
because they are broad enough to be applied to all North American Protestant
worship and yet are important enough to show true differences among Protes­
tant worship today.
A Popular Scheme: The Traditional/Contemporary/Blended Wor­
too limited a historical horizon. From one angle, "contemporary worship" really
ship Taxonomy
One of the most popular classification schemes today is a taxonomy that
uses the terms traditional, contemporary; and blended worship. Among Ameri­
can Protestants, these terms are pervasive in conversations, in popular litera­
ture, and, unfortunately, in "worship wars," A sizable number of Protestant
churches have moved to offering multiple worship services every week, dis­
tinguishing between the services by these labels.
Despite the pervasiveness of the three terms, and despite some kind of
assumption about their general meaning, the specific meanings of these terms
are unclear. Very often they are code words, Traditional designates "what we
have been doing," usually meaning a form of mainstream Protestant worship
that reflects practices of the mid-twentieth century and has roots in the Vic­
torian Era. Contemporary typically designates "what we could or should be
doing," Often, this term implies worship that has some combination of the
following "contemporary" characteristics: worship attuned to popular culture,
particularly in entertainment forms; use ofmusic that is highly repetitive, syn­
copated, and reflective ofpop music; reliance on electronic technology; a quick
pace and rhythm in the service; minimal ceremony; an informal style oflead­
ership; and use of worship leaders to demonstrate the physical and emotional
dimensions ofworship.7 In popular usage blended worship tends 10 rl'ii.'I' 10 wor­
ship that uses both traditional hymnody and contemporary dlolllW,~,1I While
SOlllc-most nOfahly theologian Rohl'l'l Wl'hhd'--havt' U /llIlll' "'I'hi" il oiled.
II Rose by Any Other Name 35
nuanced use of this term, it frequently amounts to little more than a quota sys­
tem for music and dramatic skits.
All these terms-traditional, contemporary, and blended worship-have
severe limitations and should be rejected in any serious taxonomy of worship.
Simply put, as commonly used, these terms are too general for too limited a
phenomenon.
That many of the works seeking to explore the best approach to contem­
porary worship sometimes include in "contemporary" what might be popu­
larly designated as "traditional" shows the limited usefulness of this scheme.
For example, one recent writer includes what he calls "liturgical worship" as a
type of contemporary worship. 10 But what he describes as liturgical worship,
others would label traditional. If the terms are that fluid, what real meaning
do they have?
This popular taxonomy suffers other serious limitations, Given worship's
inherent conservatism (over time even newly created congregations tend to sta­
hilize and maintain patterns), eventually the term contemporary must fall out
of usage, or churches will end up with the oxymoron of "traditional contem­
porary" worship in a few generations.
In addition, those who use traditional/contemporary language usually have
is not contemporary. When I reviewed the multiple orders of worship for so­
called contemporary worship on an online forum, for instance, the orders all
reflected a very traditional order of worship that features proclamation as the
climactic act. Such an order ofworship has been the mainstay of much Ameri­
can Protestant worship for a couple of centuries. Other than a change in the
stylistic veneer, what is truly contemporary about that? Similarly, from a greater
historical perspective, "rraditional worship" really is nor rraditional. When using
the term traditional, mosr people do not have in mind deep worship rraditions,
whether those of the early church or of the originators of various Protestant
movements like Luther or Wesley.
Consequently, rhe traditional/contemporary raxonomy is inadequate for
describing approaches to worship, whether denominational or congregational.
For example, how should we classifY a vibrant congregation of Quakers wor­
shiping in complete silence until they receive the Holy Spirit's unction to leave?
Is this "traditional" because it follows a classic Quaker approach that has a long
history reaching back to the seventeenth century? Or it is "contemporary"
hecause the worshipers might be wearing casual clothing? Since there is no
Illusic at all, mU$ical style cannot be the key to classifYing this service. And
what about an African-American congregation using gospel music in a classi­
cally ,~ITuclllrl'd Etilhari.~1 service? Is it "contemporary" because the music has
hccn rl'l'('ntly \t1l11pmnl illld ha.~ a heat? Or i,~ it "traditional" hecause many of
tilt' lexl.~ can lit' I nil I·d ".111\ 10 I hl' palrislil' t'ra, as can the hasic order of wor­
~hip? Sil1liludy. Wlllllllhllill till' IWO Fpisl'Ol'al chmdlc's \ IO~\'IOIllY hOllle dIal
 36 The Conviction of Things Not Seen
use the Book ofCommon Prayer Eucharist service but have praise teams lead­
ing the music while the congregations follow along on PowerPoint projections?
Is this "traditional" or "contemporary"? Is it "blended" even though there is
only one style of music and leadership?
Seeing the limitations ofthis scheme's terminology, some scholars show signs
of moving away from the traditional/contemporary taxonomy. For instance,
in seeking a term that speaks of worship as emerging from a worshiping peo­
ple rather than as something merely imitated from elsewhere, Leonard Sweet
prefers the term "indigenous" over "contemporary."ll Others reject the all too
often antagonistic positioning of the terms (traditional versus contemporary),
noting that each speaks of qualities desirable for all worship services.
Attempts to reform worship that rely exclusively on either traditional or con­
temporary models are not adequate solutions to our longing for more faithful
worship. This is actually a false dichotomy since authentic Christian worship is
by necessity both contemporary and traditional. It is traditional because it must
continue the story ofJesus Christ in the world in history, and it is contempo­
rary because it must be engaged with the present, with actual people who live
in particular cultures. 12
Even the term "blended worship" is too limited for serious use since it too
often describes merely a kind of quota system for worship. As one scholar
recently lampooned: "[In] many congregations ... we'll do a traditional hymn,
then we'll do a praise song. We'll have the classic structure, but we'll spice it
up with skits. A little of this and a little of that, and everyone will be happy."]3
Such an approach to blended worship tends to deal only with the surface issues
of worship performance without dealing with the more substantial issues of
the structure, content, and purpose of worship. 14
Given that these terms used in this popular scheme-traditional, contem­
porary, blended-are too ill defined and are likely to pass out of usage, a com­
prehensive taxonomy for North American worship must be found elsewhere.
A Polemical, Apologetic Scheme: The Taxonomy ofWilliam Easum
This traditional/praise/sensory taxonomy is not the only one Easum and
and Thomas Bandy
Well-known church consultants William Easum and Thomas Bandy pro­
vide an example ofa liturgical taxonomy shaped by a polemic that seeks to pro­
mote a certain evangelistic agenda. Easum and Bandy work together as Easum,
Bandy, and Associates, an organization that provides a range of educational
and consultation services for churches. According to its web-posted "approach
to ministry," this organization "helps leaders organize priorirics, idelll i/y goals,
innovate new strategies, and motivate congregations to addre's,' die spirilually
yearning, ill,~lillitiollally alienaled seckel'S or lot/ay," Tlll'y dllllll III 1r,IW pl'e
A Rose by Any Other Name 37
pared more than 75,000 church leaders in the United States and Canada since
1988,15
It is somewhat inaccurate to speak ofa single taxonomy by Easum and Bandy.
Their writings reflect related but ever-shifting sets of terms to classifY worship.
In a short 1997 essay, Easum lays out an early two-term taxonomy: ''tradi­
tional" and "contemporary."16 According to Easum, traditional worship uses
the printed page, a sixteenth-century style of music and "linear, somber, slow
forms of printed liturgy." Creeds and periods of silence are important, too.
Contemporary worship, in contrast, does not have much quiet time; it pro­
duces a visual experience and uses "indigenous" music that is "plugged-in and
turned up."
In their joint book, Growing Spiritual Redwoods, also published in 1997,
Easum and Bandy offer several taxonomies for classifYing worship. The most
fundamental is a variation of the traditional/contemporary scheme. Seeking
to define basic categories to assist in worship planning, the authors describe
three possibilities: "traditional," "praise," and "sensory" worship. I? In tradi­
tional worship, "participants give thanks in formal, historically grounded,
rational ways." This "track" is for those who prefer "robes, hymnals, creeds,
quiet time, and Elizabethan-type music." Praise worship "seeks to release the
emotions and express the joy many people who were formerly estranged from
relationship with Jesus now feel." Praise worship is a "celebration" focused on
a certain kind of music. It is a "spectator or entertainment style of worship,
with little quiet time and no emphasis on guilt." Sensory worship is charac­
terized by a heavy use of sensory experience other than hearing. It occurs "less
in words, and more in the sights and sounds, images and music, that surround
the worship experience." It consists of permeating sights and sounds, video
and visuals, rather than print or verbal speech and uses "extra-loud, plugged­
in, turned-up music."18 Easum and Bandy connect this taxonomy to genera­
tional appeal: traditional worship appeals to those who "by physical age or
mental orientation" find "some form of Christendom worship meaningful,"
praise worship to baby boomers, and sensory worship to the vast majority of
people born after 1965. 19
Bandy offer in Growing Spiritual Redwoods. Elsewhere they speak of "transac­
tive" worship (conveys the gospel across gaps), "interactive" worship (involves
participants in a reciprocal or mutually shared thanksgiving), and "actualized"
worship (makes faith as realistic and comprehensive as possible).20 Later in the
book, they provide a taxonomy based on different ways worship services can
address human need, This taxonomy offers four options: "healing," "coaching,"
"dlCrishing," alld "rl'joil'in~" worship.21 They also provide another taxonomy
ora sort Whl'll t1wy lbnill\' 1I11'characteristics of ''indigel1011s'' worship. Such
worship Illalll'~ rxprrll'l1ll'II1t1lr ill1pllnalll thall contl'lIt, is il1ll'I'WIlIlC(,'lcd with
l'vnyday lift', II~C'~ 11H1lt'('flllll~ IIlmil • "'{'S vidl'o and SCHIIHI sY.'It'lllS ;IS lTlIl'ial
 38 The Conviction of Things Not Seen
elements, replaces choir practices with technology rehearsals, and has "con­
stant, uninterrupted flow."22
In subsequent writings, Easum and Bandy have continued to evolve their
taxonomies. In a 2000 article on "multi-tracking" worship in a congregation
(that is, providing multiple worship opportunities targeted at different groups'
spiritual needs), Bandy expands a taxonomy laid out earlier, noting differ­
ences in "healing," "coaching," "cherishing," "celebration," and "traditional"
worship.23 Similarly, Easum takes the earlier traditional!contemporary or tra­
ditional!praise/sensory categories and adds some qualitative adjectives. Easum
now sees four kinds of worship services: "spiritless traditional," "spirited tra­
ditional," "praise," and "postmodern."24 According to Easum, the category of
spiritless traditional is the most prevalent and is found in 80 percent of
churches. It is "slow, linear, and predictable," enabling people to sleep through
the services. The music is slow and played on organs. The service is filled with
dead spots. To outsiders, these services feel lifeless, dull, and boring. The spir­
ited traditional form of worship is found in less than 10 percent of churches,
according to Easum. It is characterized by passion in the pulpit and vitality
in the pews. It moves with precision and has an abundance of good music.
Despite its current vitality, however, it reflects a "culture whose day has long
passed." Praise worship is used by 90 percent of growing churches in Easum's
opinion. The most notable element of the service is the music itself. Other
common characteristics include solid preaching, drama, an informal atmos­
phere, and no "dead spots." Postmodern worship uses a variety of musical
styles in an ever-changing tide of services. It uses every form of technology,
offers a clear and uncompromising message, and develops authenticity, inti­
macy, and community.
Although the precise terms vary from publication to publication, there are
several constants in Easum's and Bandy's taxonomies. Theit tone does not vary.
The taxonomies are polemical and apologetic throughout. The two men bring
an iconoclastic tendency to their descriptions. Determined to advocate meas­
ures that will achieve evangelistic success, the two consultants attach descrip­
tions to their categories that will make what they are advocating the most attrac­
tive and what they consider problematic the least attractive. They show no
concern for detached, objective descriptions.
Indeed, there tends to be a certain kind of dualism running throughout
the liturgical writings of Easum and Bandy. In their opinion, some forms of
worship are bad; others are good. Generally, those forms of worship they
associate with mainstream Protestantism of the latter half of the twentieth
century are found to be bad because they show so little potential for accom­
plishing Easum's and Bandy's evangelistic goals. In Easum's terminology, these
are the spiritless traditional services, and the two men describe these services
,I in very harsh terms. In contrast, they portray other kinds ofworship in glow­
ing terms.
A Rose by Any Othet Name 39
Standing behind this dualism is Easum's and Bandy's fundamental concern:
positive personal experience in worship. Their classification schemes are really
taxonomies of how they perceive and believe people to be responding to the
current variety in worship. Their taxonomical method is rooted in a concern
for a positive personal experience in worship. Consider the emphasis on per­
sonal experience as a fundamental category in Easum's summary of worship:
"No matter what type of worship a church uses, one thing is important: Peo­
ple must experience the transforming presence of God. Anything less isn't wor­
ship, no matter the style."25 The two consultants typically see newer forms of
mainstream Protestant worship as creating positive experiences.
This concern for experience has two facets within their thought. One is
assessing people's immediate reaction to different kinds ofworship. The other
is an emphasis on culturally accessible communication as the primary purpose
of worship. Thus Bandy can suggest two reasons why people are not attend­
ing his reader's worship service. Either "your current worship service does not
address their spiritual needs" or "YOUt current worship service does not com­
municate in their cultural forms."26 These concerns thoroughly color the tax­
onomies ofEasum and Bandy. They view a category of worship highly if they
believe it gives people a positive experience of ChristY Likewise, since a pri­
mary purpose of worship is communication, worship practices that use newer
communication forms receive more glowing endorsements.
There are several limitations in Easum's and Bandy's taxonomies. The first
comes from the polemical nature of their writings. They are so eager to advo­
cate a certain approach that their descriptions too often fall into caricatures.
This is true even for the types of worship that they advocate. Their writings
universalize their own experiences and perceptions of the struggles in main­
stream Protestantism. 28 Their biases seep into their writings, cutting off con­
sideration of worship's true breadth. Consider, for example, two depictions of
traditional worship. Traditional worship involves "robes, hymnals, creeds, quiet
time, and Elizabethan-type music" and "the linear, somber, slow forms of
printed liturgy."29 How would this description apply to an African-American
congregation using a gospel music setting for their weekly eucharistic service
or to an Episcopal eucharistic service using so-called contemporary music?
Consider another caricature: the idea that sensory worship that appeals to
younger adults will use "extra-loud, plugged-in, turned-up music."30 How does
this caricature square with the increasingly popular phenomenon of young
adults attracted to services using the quiet, contemplative music ofTaize, the
ecumenical community of France?31 Unfortunately, if one does not read care­
fully, Easum's and Bandy's prescriptions for worship too often verge on being
absolute-but i l1acl'llI';Ill'~-. dl'seriptioI1S of worsh ip.
AllollH:r lill1itatioll /(Hllld in rhe wrirings of FaSlilTl and Bandy i,~ their lack
(lfelllph:l.~i,~ 1111 d[(' dtrolofl,il ;,1111111('111 orwOl'.~hip. (;iVl'n t1ll'ir li!urgit.':llllll·rlllld
(dll' IISl' of qllulihlllvl' IIIII'W" II" h,IM·t1 011 wlll',~ltipl·I'.,' po,'ilivr n"'IHIIlM'S >Jill!
 40 The Conviction of Things Not Seen
the presumption that numerical growth validates worship practices), it would
be possible to misuse their categories to legitimize forms ofworship that should
be illegitimate for Christians. For example, the shallowness of their categories
that connect "inspirational" and "spirited" to "transformative" could be used
to affirm classic Shaker worship of the nineteenth century, despite its hetero­
dox anti-Trinitarian theology. The Shakers were evangelizing effectively with
new forms of worship that moved people (literally) and transformed lives.
Could not Easum's and Bandy's categories be used to affirm this worship, even
though it was clearly unorthodox? Admittedly, the two men do not overtly
advocate unorthodox worship, but given the lack of theological concern in
their taxonomies, one wonders why Shaker worship would not fall into their
"good" categories. That is precisely the problem with an intentionally dualis­
tic, polemical taxonomy like theirs: too little thoughtfulness stands behind the
categories.
In addition, the classification schemes of Easum and Bandy are limited in
that any taxonomies in which the classifications are rooted in worshipers' per­
sonal reactions tell us more about the worshipers (or classifiers) than the wor­
ship itself Using categories based in experience or reaction is too highly sub­
jective, since different people could have a completely different reaction to the
same worship service. Different theologies, cultural backgrounds, capacities
for ritual activity, and spiritual inclinations among worshipers could result in
vastly varying interpretations of the same worship service. In that case what
does "spirited" or "inspirational" worship mean? One suspects that in Easum's
and Bandy's writings such terms always mean a kind of worship they like.
An Evangelical, Pastoral Scheme: The Taxonomy of Paul Basden
Paul Basden provides another recent taxonomy of North American wor­
ship.32 Basden, a Baptist pastor, created his taxonomy for a different purpose
and audience. Compiled to help evangelical churches understand different
approaches to worship that they may follow, Basden's taxonomy is instructive
in that it shows how a current American evangelical might see the diversity of
North American worship. As a comprehensive taxonomy for North American
worship, however, it is incomplete.
Basden constructs his taxonomy as a one-dimensional, horizontal spectrum
using popular, nontechnical labels. The distinct categories assess different kinds
of worship "styles," which Basden appears to use as a broad term for forms of
worship. The elements he assesses to determine different styles of worship
include the following: attitude, mood, order of worship, "target audience,"
congregational singing, special music, musical instrumentation, amount of
Scripture, offering, manner ofpreaching, manner of"invita(ion," and approach
to ordinances and sacraments. He devtl()p.~ a IIvl'-poi11l ~Pl'dl'lllll in ordl'l' 10
11
A Rose by Any Other Name 41
go beyond the simple traditional/nontraditional or traditional/contemporary/
blended categories often used today.34
With the goal of discerning distinct styles ofworship, Basden identifies five
main styles and places them along a spectrum, the left-hand side being the
most traditional, and the right, the least. 35 In chart form, Basden's spectrum
looks like this:
Liturgical Traditional Revivalist Praise and Worship Seeker
Basden's main concern is to describe the nature of each of these styles. Identi­
fication ofeach category with a particular denomination, ethnic group, or his­
torical figure is offered, but is a secondary concern. When such details are
specifically identified, Basden's spectrum looks like this:
Liturgical Traditional Revivalist Praise and Worship Seeker
Lutheran Reformed Zwingli Black worship Willow Creek
Anglican Separatist Quaker Pentecostal Saddleback
Puritan Wesleyan
Frontier
Basden details what he means by each category. Generally, "liturgical" wor­
ship has the strongest historical roots; its goal is "to bow before the holiness of
God in structured reverence. "36 Liturgical worship is the form ofworship used
by most mainline Protestant and Roman Catholic churches. "Traditional" wor­
ship is a hybrid of its two neighbors, "liturgical" and "revivalist."37 From its
liturgical roots comes a sense of dignity and reverence; from its revivalist con­
nections comes a concern with moving the hearts of the worshipers. "Revival­
ist" worship derives from American frontier roots. It is characterized by "infor­
mality, exuberance, zeal and aggressive preaching," all of which are aimed to
convert sinners. 38 Basden identifies "praise and worship" mainly with Pente­
costal worship. It is worship aimed at bringing believers into an intimate sense
of God's presence through music. 39 The "seeker" approach is a rehash of the
revivalist goal, albeit in a toned-down format. Seeker worship attempts to pres­
ent the gospel to unbelievers. 4o
Basden's taxonomy has several strengths. It focuses on congregational phe­
nomena, and thus, offers itselfas a possible taxonomy for assessing what is cur­
n.:ntly happening in North American Protestant worship. It recognizes diver­
~ity within denominations. It is concerned with God's presence in worship,
which, as I will atgue, is an important way to distinguish among approaches
10 worship. And importantly, Basden attempts to be open-minded as he tries
to provide a fair, anracrivl' description of each worship style.
Basden's laxonol1lY dm's IwVl' Sllllll' flaws, howl~vcr, Bccausc he docs not limit
hilll.~c1r III l'l1l'l't'111 I'Kpn',~,~i(lll~ Ill' worship. Basden al rimes makl's historical
 42 The Conviction of Things Not Seen
overstatements. For example, it is quite surprising to find the sixteenth-century
Reformer Ulrich Zwingli, the seventeenth-century Quaker founder George Fox,
and the eighteenth-century Anglican priest and founder ofthe Methodist move­
ment John Wesley grouped together as examples of the revivalist category. 41
Those preferring a history-based taxonomy would do better with James White's
more historically accurate taxonomy, which I will describe later.
A severe flaw occurs in the use of"liturgical" as a taxonomical category. Such
usage must be questioned on theological grounds. Basden, following popular
evangelical usage, seems to intend this term to mean a certain way of doing
worship that involves a high level of ceremony, use of historically grounded
texts, and a certain reverential tone. Although this usage might be common
among evangelicals, it is poor theology to limit "liturgical" to one "style" of
Christian worship, because it implies that the rest of Christian worship is not
"liturgical." In a theological sense, "liturgical" does not refer to a certain style
of worship-formal with much ceremony-but to a church's worship partic­
ipating in the ongoing ministry of Jesus Christ before God the Father (Heb.
8: 1-2). "Liturgical" refers to worship as a work of the people, a public service.
It can refer to both Christ's work on humanity's behalf and the church's par­
ticipation as the body of Christ in the ongoing ministry of Christ for all peo­
ple. In this theological sense, all Christian worship must be "liturgical" to be
truly Christian. Thus the theological question is not whether any certain kind
of Christian worship is liturgical or not, but how it is liturgical. "Liturgical"
should not be used as a classifYing term to distinguish a worship style.
Basden's spectrum breaks down at some points. Looking at whether the
different styles of worship address primarily Christians or non-Christians, a
style's placement on the spectrum does not indicate its approach to this issue.
Thus "revivalist" (in the center of the spectrum) and "seeker" (on the far right
end) target non-Christians, while "praise and worship," located between these
two, is concerned with leading Christians into worship (as are "liturgical" and
"traditional").
Basden's taxonomy is also limited in that it is not comprehensive enough.
Basden is Baptist, and that perspective, naturally enough, seems to be his real
point of reference. Many of his examples of each type of worship are Baptist
examples. Because his intended audience seems to be evangelical churches
trying to find their way through the worship "maze," he tends to underem­
phasize approaches to worship that are not viable options for mainstream
evangelicals.
Basden's taxonomy tends toward caricature at several points. For instance,
because it makes classifications based on worshipers' reactions, Basden can
paint a picture that presumes all Christian approaches to worship have as a pri­
mary purpose a desire to elicit responses from the worshipers-possibly a pro­
jection of Basden's own experience. But that is not necessarily tilt' CISl' filr all
Protcsrant approaches to worship.
A Rose by Any Othet Name 43
Likewise, even some strengths of his taxonomy, such as assessing the man­
ner of God's presence in worship, can lead to caricature. Basden spends quite
a bit of time linking what he sees as different dimensions of God's presence to
different types ofworship. Thus "liturgical" worship cultivates a sense of God's
transcendence but not immanence. 42 "Traditional" worship, in comparison,
yields both a sense of God's transcendence and immanence, while "praise and
worship" focuses on a sense of God's immanence. 43
Examining the way in which God's presence is experienced in the different
forms of worship has potential for a solid taxonomy-and will be revisited
below-but Basden's use of this aspect of worship is too subjective and can
lead to inaccurate caricatures. It would not be too hard to find "liturgical"
churches with active, deep fellowships in which a tremendous sense of God's
immanence is experienced during the exchange of the peace ofChrist or recep­
tion of the Eucharist. Similarly, one can imagine a Pentecostal church bowed
before a sense of God's transcendence after a particularly moving word of
prophecy embedded within the time ofmusic. Basden's taxonomy would bene­
fit from looking not at a subjective, qualitative sense of God's presence but at
the ordinary means by which the worshiping congregation senses God's pres­
ence. In other words, not whether the God's presence is experienced as tran­
scendent or immanent but whether the people expect to find his presence in
their music, their preaching, or in their sacraments.
Finally, Basden's taxonomy suffers from his overstatements. For example,
he describes the purpose of praise and worship services as guiding worshipers
"to offer a sacrifice of praise ... in a spirit of joyful adoration." Surely, this is
such a broad and basic statement that one wonders who in Basden's taxonomy
would not want to claim it.
A Thorough Historical Scheme: The Taxonomy ofJames White
Noted liturgical historian James White has created perhaps the most thor­
ough Protestant liturgical taxonomy. This thoughtful scheme reflects the
breadth ofWhite's knowledge and is the place to ground any serious study of
Protestant liturgical classification. White's evenhanded scholarship is evident
as one views the continual development of his taxonomy over fifteen years to
its present, mature form. White began intentionally publishing a comprehen­
sive taxonomy for Protestant worship in 1975. Several revisions followed until
he published a final form of the taxonomy in 1989. 44 White's goal is a com­
prehensive taxonomy to classify the different traditions of Protestant worship
From rhei r ori~i ns t II I hei r presen r expressions.
Th~~ heart tlFWhilt.'s 1;I)(OllOl11y is his identii'icarion of nine Protestant wor­
.~hil' lradililll1N: "wllt'l'IIll, AIII-\Iililli. l{dtJl'llll'd. Mt'lhodisr. Puritan. Anabap­
liSI. <]lIalu'l" 1I1'C1II11rl, 11Iltll'rllll'lmiai. While idellliliC's Iht"~t' nil1t, IradiliollS
44 The Conviction of Things Not Seen
based on key enduring characteristics ofeach. He emphasizes this ethos ofeach
tradition's approach rather than the older approach in his discipline that empha­
sized each tradition's liturgical texts. White chooses to emphasize each tradi­
tion's ethos rather than its liturgical texts because, as White himself points out,
some Protestants do not have liturgical texts, having rejected their use in wor­
ship as part of the tradition's ethos.
From his first published taxonomy to its mature form in Protestant WOrship:
Traditions in Transition (1989), White is fairly consistent in the list ofelements
he uses to determine the distinctive ethos of the various Protestant liturgical
traditions. These "central elements" that distinguish one Protestant tradition
from another include the use or absence of service books, the importance or
unimportance of sacraments, tendencies to uniformity based on codification
or lack thereof, congregational autonomy or connectionalism, the varying roles
of music and the other arts, ceremony or its absence, variety and predictabil­
ity, and various sociological factors. 45 White builds his taxonomy on these fac­
tors, first identifying a cluster of characteristics that constitute a distinctive
ethos, then labeling that ethos as a Protestant worship tradition, and finally
describing how those characteristics define that Protestant tradition. Thus the
Lutheran tradition shows a basic conservatism, a love of music, a concern for
preaching, and a toleration of indifferent matters (for example, robes) as long
as they do not suggest works righteousness. The Methodist tradition is a hybrid
tradition that mixes certain Anglican roots with a Free Church attitude. Added
to this mix are a good dose of pragmatism and, at least originally, an interest
in examples from the early church. The Quaker tradition, in comparison,
emphasizes direct access to the Holy Spirit and waiting for the Spirit to move
before any action is taken in worship. It is a form of corporate mysticism, as a
classic Quaker approach abolishes all presupposed outward forms of worship.
White's earlier works describe each tradition in an abbreviated form. His 1989
book, Protestant WOrship, gives a chapter-length examination to each.
Differences in essential character or ethos is how White distinguishes between
the various Protestant traditions. Having established a distinctive identity for
each, White places the nine traditions under three broad classifications: left
wing, central, and right wing. While acknowledging that these terms are pulled
from the political arena, White does not mean them in a literal political sense. 46
Instead, White intends to show in these broad political terms a tradition's rela­
tive position to late medieval Western liturgical roots, one of his main criteria
for distinguishing among Protestant worship traditions. White labels two of
the Protestant traditions (Lutheran and Anglican) as right wing, meaning that,
with respect to late-medieval liturgical forms, their worship practices have
reflected a more restrained revision. In contrast, the central groups (Reformed
and Methodist) reflect a more remote attachment to the ways of worship of
the late Middle Ages. The left-wing groups (Anabaptist, Quakl'l" Puritan, I1ron­
tier, and Pentecostal) show the least COnIH'(~lioll to llll'dil'VlIlmols,'11
A Rose by Any Otber Name 45
In addition to these two bases for distinction-a tradition's enduring char­
acteristics of ethos and its relative position to the medieval past-White also
notes each tradition's date of origin to develop his full taxonomy. The result is
a two-dimensional spectrum that visually represents the relative position of
each Protestant tradition to the others and to its medieval roots. The horizon­
tal access in this spectrum represents the relative connection to medieval roots
with the right-wing traditions, as might be guessed, on the right hand side of
the spectrum and vice versa. The vertical axis represents each tradition's point
of origin in history. The older Protestant traditions appear at the top of the
vertical axis, and the younger toward the bottom. This mature taxonomical
chart first appeared in 1989 and is reproduced below.
White's Chart of the Protestant Traditions ofWorship 48
Origins Left Wing Central Right Wing
16th century Anabaptist Reformed Anglican Lutheran
17th century Quaker Puritan
18th century Methodist
19th century Frontier
20th century Pentecostal
A subsequent version included lines to show shifts and developments. In another
adaptation, White has also produced a version of the taxonomy that links the
different traditions to European regions when appropriate. 49
White's taxonomy has both strengths and limitations. It is strongest when
llsed for describing the origins of historically distinct approaches. White's
tremendous grasp of liturgical history is evident. Not surprisingly, his taxon­
omyis therefore a good tool for showing the nature of distinct approaches to
Protestant worship in their original forms. In addition, the characteristics he
identifies for assessing each tradition's ethos are very perceptive and remain
useful.
The taxonomy is less useful for showing the actual types of Protestant wor­
.\hip in use now. 50 White himself hints at this limitation in his classification
scheme when he notes that it is easier to define the center of a tradition than
its periphery.51 In addition, White recognizes that cultural and ethnic differ­
l'nces can deeply affect the expression of a tradition in any context. Moreover,
White recognizes a degree of blurring among the traditions, as certain cultural
shifts (for example, the Enlightenment) can cause similar fallout among the
traditions. 52 White also recognizes that ecumenical sharing can cause the blur­
ring oflines between traditions. 53
l1ailure to recognize these limitations could lead to a false picture of the
(lII"n:nt state of Protestant worship in North America. If a reader failed to
s('(' thl' (;lctors that \t'ad 10 hiurrilll!. ov('J' lillle, it would be possible to overem­
plwsi'l.l' a distinnioll h('IW('('Il, IIII' rxalllpk, Ml,thodist and Refnrl1led wor­
ship. IJI Hdlllllily, dllr to II vildrly ol'l;(IOI'S, Illany oftlw lrndirions 1l00nll'd
 46 The Conviction of Things Not Seen
by White can now represent a rather wide spectrum of worship practices.
Put more simply, can anyone really say what it means to worship according
to the Methodist or the Reformed tradition right now in North America?
Chutches belonging to a tradition identified by White-even to the same
denomination within that tradition-can vary widely in worship practices
today, even if they are located on the same street in the same city. White's
own prophecy, written in the first publication of his taxonomy, seems to
have come true: "It is quite possible that the greatest differences will soon
be discernible within groups that previously would have been reckoned dis­
tinct traditions. "54 That would suggest that a different set of labels other
than the ones suggested by White, which tend to be historically based, would
be helpful for describing the current diversity of Protestant worship in North
America.
Suggestions for a New Taxonomy
Where does our examination of these taxonomies leave us? If we desire a
taxonomy that is simple enough to distinguish basic differences among Protes­
tant churches, yet broad enough to cover the full range ofcurrent North Ameri­
can practices, whose taxonomy offers the most guidance? The popular tradi­
tional/contemporary/blended taxonomy is hopelessly simplistic. Easum's and
Bandy's taxonomies are too polemical; they provide more information about
the agenda of these two men than they do about the true range of Christian
worship practices. Basden's taxonomy has some helpful points but is too nar­
rowand, at times, inaccurate. James White's taxonomy is the most thorough,
well developed, and historically sound. It is strongest, however, as a historical
taxonomy for Protestant worship. Its categories are not as helpful in distin­
guishing the variety of current approaches to Christian worship
All is not lost with these taxonomies. I believe it is possible to take the root
information behind White's taxonomy-his notion of the ethos of each tra­
dition-and combine it with some insights from Robert Webber in order to
achieve the goal of a simple, accutate, yet broad set of classifYing terms for
Christian worship in North America today. 55
In speaking about the planning of worship, Robert Webber often makes a
distinction between content, structure, and style in worship.56 This framework
is itself a helpful step because it takes us beyond simply looking at stylistic
issues, which is where some popular taxonomies stop. In fact, I suggest that it
is the other two elements (content and structute) that are the most helpful for
developing categories to classifY worship. This takes Webber's terms beyond
what he himself does with them. For Webber, who tends to advocate a certain
approach to worship in his publications, believes the content and structlll'e of
worship should remain f~lir1y steady. The (.'onlelll and stnlCllll'l' lit' ,~U!-\!-\t ..~l.~ i,~
11 Rose by Any Other Name 47
derived from the Bible and based on deep historical normsY I believe the fact
I hat he must advocate certain classic content and structure in worship high­
lights that it is precisely on these crucial matters that diversity abounds in Chris­
I ian worship.
And so, taking White's notion that different liturgical approaches can be
ddined by differences in ethos and Webber's distinctions between content and
structure, I suggest two initial ways ofclassifYing worship today, The first deals
with the question ofcontent. Specifically, what is the content ofa church's wor­
ship in terms of whose story is told: the personal story of the believer or the
cosmic story of God? No one service or Sunday is likely to fully disclose how
to classify a congregation. This must be assessed over a longer period of time,
l'valuating the worship from week to week. I suggest two categories for classi­
lying content: personal-story churches and cosmic-story churches. There are
churches whose worship over time is most focused on the personal stories of
Ihe worshipers and how God interacts with their stories. In contrast, there are
dlllrches whose worship over time unfolds a more cosmic remembrance of the
f',rand sweep of God's saving activity. The goal here will be to show how wor­
shipers have a share in salvation history. These two categories represent a con­
I illuum rather than an absolute distinction, since few churches appear to exist
,~trictly in one mode or the other.
Personal-story churches and cosmic-story churches can be distinguished by
how their worship answers this question: What needs to be remembered cor­
porately in worship? The different answers may not be readily identifiable in
a ,~ingle element in a single congregation. Rather, over time, one must assess
how a church selects the Scripture it will read, the normal purpose of the ser­
mon, the regular content of prayers and music, the nature ofany dramatic pre­
sl'ntations, and the special holidays that are observed. Evaluate, for example,
the content of a church's worship music. Over time, are the main metaphors
and content relational, emphasizing our relationship to a wonderful God? Are
Ihere few references to a historical man Jesus or to biblical stories of God act­
ing within human history? In comparison, is the content mainly historical,
lIsing this remembrance to make statements about a saving God? One could
,d,~o look at how the congregation explains the meaning of baptism and the
I,ord's Supper. Are these events about each individual's personal experience of
;1 gracious God who has given us life abundant, or are they signs by which, to
II.~l' the language of the newest United Methodist baptismal service, we are
"incorporated into God's mighty acts of salvation"?58
A few examples may clarifY the difference between personal-story and
I I lml ie-story churches. An example of the first is a church that plans its wor­
,h iphased 011 themes of particular interest to the worshipers. This approach
llsllally lTl~ale,~ per,mnal-story ha,~ed worship, particularly if the church is
illit'llliollal ahou! idt'l1lifyil1g irs pankipanls' "felt lleeds." Cinghal11sburg
I Jl1ilt'tl Mt't1lOdisl (:hurdl ill ()hio l't'prt..~t·lIl.~ Ihi,~ approach. Plallllin~ WOI'­
48 The Conviction of Things Not Seen
ship begins with naming a felt need in the church's target audience. Based
on this need, worship planners then develop a theme and a metaphor that
serves as the root visual image for the service. Everything else is selected on
that basis. 59 In contrast, the worship of a Methodist church strictly follow­
ing the Revised Common Lectionary operates on a much different basis. If
the musical texts, prayers, readings, and sermon content were all connected
to the lectionary texts, the result would be a telling of a very different story
than that of the Ginghamburg church.
The second approach I suggest for classifying worship deals with the dif­
ferent structures of worship services. When Webber discusses structure, he
usually is advocating a fourfold order rooted in the services of the early
church. 60 I do not intend such a narrow focus here in using different struc­
tures as akey to classifying different kinds of worship. I use structure in a
broader sense to designate the organizing principle in a congregation's wor­
ship. Put more specifically, where is the most time and energy spent within a
service, and what gets the most prominent space and most expensive fur­
nishings and equipment? When these questions are answered, I believe that
most North American worship services are organized around one ofthree cat­
egories: music, Word/preaching, or table (meaning the Lord's Supper). In
other words, one of these usually serves as the dominant aspect of worship
around which other things orbit.
I also suggest that these three categories are not just the main organizing
principles in what gets the most time, energy, and dominant position in the
order of worship. I believe they also serve as the primary sacramental princi­
ples at work in different approaches to North American worship today. In other
words, one of these three categories is usually the normal means by which a
congregation assesses God's presence in worship or believes that God is made
present in worship. This assessment or belief does not have to be at the level
offormal theology. It can be at the level ofpopular piety. The point is the same.
A congregation will devote time, energy, attention, and money to the worship
activity in which the people find God's presence.
I am not the first to suggest this threefold approach to different sacramen­
tal principles. Reformed liturgical scholar John Witvliet has suggested a simi­
lar thing.
Worshipers in nearly every Christian tradition experience some of what hap­
pens in worship as divine encounter. Differences in Christian worship arise not
so much whether or not God is understood to be present, but rather in what
sense. Those who mock supposedly simplistic theories ofsacramental realism at
the Lord's Supper wind up preserving sacramental language for preaching or for
music. Speaking only somewhat simplistically: the Roman Catholics reserve
their sacramental language for the Eucharist, Presbyterians reserve theirs for
preaching, and the charismatics save theirs for music. In a recent pastors' con­
ference, one evangelical pastor solicited applications for a music dircctorlwor-
A Rose by Any Othet Name 49
ship leader position by calling for someone who could "make God present
through music." No medieval sacramental theologian could have said it more
strongly.G!
[ suggest that Witvliet's description of different approaches to sacramentality
is accurate enough that it can form the basis for a new kind of liturgical tax­
onomy, although Witvliet himself does not take it that far. Everyone speaks of
encountering God's presence in worship. The difference, which can offer cat­
egories for a liturgical taxonomy, is how and where they expect to have that
encounter in worship.62
Some may be surprised by the notion of attaching the experience of God's
presence to music itself, although they understand doing so with the Word of
God or the Lord's Supper. Such a connection to music, however, is quite preva­
lent in some current approaches to worship. It is the basic premise, for exam­
ple, in any praise and worship service based on a typology of the Old Testa­
ment temple. In that case, music is the vehicle that moves worshipers into the
Holy of Holies of God's presence. 63 One book based on this approach states
the matter bluntly in its title: God's Presence through Music. 64 Even the very
recent sociological study from the Hartford Institute for Religion Research sug­
gests a connection between a stronger sense of the "immediacy of the Holy
Spirit" and those churches using newer musical styles and electronic instru­
mentation. 65 These are often the churches that have a central role for extended
music in their services.
The categories in this taxonomy call be overlaid on White's chart in order to
update his approach. One could place the music-organized, Word/preaching­
organized, and table-organized categories on top of his chart. The result would
show tendencies in North American worship today. Traditions on the right­
hand side of the chart tend to have worship that is organized around the table.
Centrist traditions' worship tend to be organized around the Word and preach­
ing. The left-hand traditions are those in which one tends to find music-organized
services and an emphasis on music as sacrament.
Such a scheme is too simple, however, in two respects. For a more accurate
picture, this kind of taxonomy must take diversity into account, whether we
are speaking of denominations or White's traditions. Yet in spite of this, this
classification scheme can be helpful. For one thing, I suggest that churches at
either end of an expanded version ofWhite's chart are more likely to be in line
with the tendency of that end of the sacramental-principle spectrum. Thus
Pentecostal churches currently are more likely to have music-organized ser­
vices, but not exclusively so. Lutheran and Anglican. churches, in contrast, are
Inore 1ikely to have table-organized services, but not exclusively so. This sacra­
Illental-principle spectrum can suggest what might be the second most likely
killd uf"service (1)1' a dllirch. III other words, a Pentecostal church is more likely
10 have a Word/pr('achill~cor~allized service thall a tahle-organized one. Sim­
ilarly, 0111' i.~ morr Iilirly 10 lind a Word/pr('achillp,~or~allized sl'l'vice ill a
50 The Conviction of Things Not Seen A Rose by Any Other Name 51

Lutheran or Anglican setting than a music-organized one. An example would This classification scheme can line up generally with White's chart, too.
be an Episcopal church I once attended whose services had no music at all. For Churches on the left-hand side of his chart will tend to have a congregational
White's central traditions, particularly Methodist and Reformed, this sacra­ Iiturgical method, whereas churches on the right will have a connectional one.
mental-principle spectrum suggests the true diversity-and fights-that now As before, the central traditions will be split. Individual denominations there
take place within these traditions. Within these central traditions some forces might officially be connectional but act congregationally.
pull churches toward a music-sacramentality, while other forces pull toward a
sacramentality in which God's presence is most acutely experienced in the Lord's
Supper. Thus it is currently possible to find services within these centrist tra­ Conclusion
ditions that fall anywhere within the spectrum of sacramentalities.
In addition, to show the true diversity of today's approaches to worship, And so, back to our original question: How would you classifY your church's
this scheme must take into account the possible combinations of sacramen­ worship? Using the new classifYing terms I have suggested, does your church's
tal principles. GG In other words, there are churches whose services balance worship usually tell a personal story or a cosmic story? How do people orga­
music-organized and Word-organized sacramentalities and churches whose nize the worship service and assess God's presence? Is your service music orga­
services balance Word-organized and table-organized sacramentalities. Less nized, Word organized, or table organized? How do people expect to encounter
likely are churches that combine music-organized and table-organized sacra­ God in worship? In the music, in the preaching, or in the Lord's Supper? And
mentalities. Less likely, too, are churches that combine all three. These com­ finally, is your church's worship planned using a method that is congregational
binations suggest a different meaning for the term "blended worship." Rather or connectional in its approach?
Given the variety ofliturgical taxonomies now in use, it is a daunting task
than referring to a blending of music or even worship styles, perhaps it is bet­
to suggest another scheme. I hope the categories given in this new taxonomy
ter used to describe congregations that sense God's presence in worship through
can provide some real insight about the substance and diversity ofNorth Arneri­
a variety of means.
Finally, I would like to suggest another set of classifYing labels for North can worship today.
American worship today that are rooted in White's assessment ofethos but that
are not connected to Webber's. I believe that one of the aspects White uses to
distinguish the ethos of a tradition still serves as a clear and crucial element in
classifYing worship today. The aspect is whether a church, in its liturgical plan­
ning, operates as an independent congregation or starts with the assumption
that it will use resources common to its tradition or denomination. G7 The first
approach I call "congregational," and the second "connectional." (Non­
Methodists must excuse my selecting for the second approach a term that has
roots in my Methodist heritage.) Of course, there is a third option: churches
that are officially connectional but actually operate as autonomous congrega­
tions. (I could point to my own Methodist church.)
These labels are useful for understanding how it is that single congregations
are likely to make worship decisions. I believe, for example, that the literature
on liturgical inculturation can be separated along this congregational!connec­
tional divide. There is one set of writings on how we should adapt worship to
fit different cultures that presumes a connectional method. In this perspective,
the goal is to take a common resource, whether created by the denomination
or derived from history, and then adapt it to different cultural groups. Most
ofthe literature from Anglican and Lutheran sources fits this approach. In con­
trast, literature on culturally adapted worship from church grow(-h experts,
including Easum and Bandy, emphasize the absolule: ;1l1101l0111Y Ill' Illcal con­
gregations in (;rcating new wllrship forms.